RebKell's Junkie Boards

[cthskzfn]

Time to man the phones and the streets again.

The latest Republican't attempt to get a win for their dupedplorables re: "repealing Obamacare", while needing only 50 Senate votes to do so, is a complete piece of shit. Pre-existing conditions will be back in play, and a "redistribution of wealth" from states which expanded medicaid under the ACA to those that didn't, is included.

The Sept 30 deadline for truncated passage won't allow a full CBO score:

"CBO will provide as much qualitative information as possible about the effects of the legislation, however CBO will not be able to provide point estimates of the effects on the deficit, health insurance coverage, or premiums for at least several weeks," a statement from the CBO said Monday.

Republicans, you are scum.


http://www.kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/5-ways-the-graham-cassidy-proposal-puts-medicaid-coverage-at-risk/

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[mercfan3]

fuckers are trying it again.

I think we need one of Murkowski or McCain to vote no. I believe Collins and someone else are already a "no."

Bothers me that it comes from Graham. He's one of those Republicans that I do really want to like, but then he comes out with this shit.

_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie

[cthskzfn]

And I believe Cassidy said that he'd never support a bill which would allow pre-existing condition exclusion.

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[GlennMacGrady]

The way I read the site you linked, the prohibition on excluding pre-existing conditions remains as is and cannot be waived.

Coverage for kids up to 26 stays the same.

Beyond that, the bill is extremely complicated and I don't pretend to understand it without studying it for probably 40-50 hours, which no legislator or news reporter will do.

http://files.kff.org/attachment/Summary-of-Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson-Amendment

http://www.kff.org/interactive/proposals-to-replace-the-affordable-care-act/

[justintyme]

It allows for states to remove the essential health benefits and the prohibition on health status upcharges. So while insurers will not be allowed to deny coverage due to a preexisting condition, they will be able to charge those individuals higher premiums, effectively pricing most of them out of the market. And if you want mental health coverage? Good luck to you.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[cthskzfn]

[cthskzfn]

[cthskzfn]

Why do Republiscums continually lie about this bill?

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[GlennMacGrady]

Jimmy Kimmel?

Trump said this week that he wouldn't sign legislation that didn't continue coverage for pre-existing conditions. That's been his consistent position throughout his campaign and the debates.

I've listened to both Graham and Cassidy this week, and they say the bill requires states to provide "adequate and affordable" coverage for pre-existing conditions. When asked who determines what is affordable, they said it is the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) administrators, a program that is now 20 years old.

As to the block grants to the states for Medicaid, they say the grants under Obamacare are currently very asymmetrical. 40% of the federal taxpayer money goes to just four states -- California, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland -- which comprise 20% of the U.S. population. This is because those states have enacted state Medicaid laws, some even before Obamacare, that are far richer in coverage than the other states. Therefore, federal taxpayers in other states are funding the richer Medicaid programs enacted in these states.

The goal of the G-C bill, according to what G&C say, is to equalize the block grants on a per-head basis by 2026. That is, each state by 2026 will receive the same amount of federal money per person in their states. If some states want to enact richer Medicaid programs than is affordable with the federal allocation, they will have to rely on their own state's taxpayers to do so, by raising their own state taxes somehow.

To the extent this is true (I haven't read the bill), it seems consistent with equity and the philosophy of federalism.

On a more global level than this small fraction of the G-C bill, it is self-evident that any type of legislation that amends or replaces Obamacare must cut coverage somehow, overall, to help reduce the continuing cost inflation and federal deficit increases, which are the big problems under Obamacare. Whoever loses coverage under whatever plan will not like it and complain. Under Obamacare, for example, one of the biggest loser groups was seniors -- those most in need of medical care -- because Obamacare takes money out of Medicare to pay for its coverage of other groups.

There will be a debate on CNN Monday between Graham and Cassidy on their bill and Sanders and Klobuchar on theirs.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/MagicBusBasketball

[cthskzfn]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/21/16340066/health-group-statements-graham-cassidy-bill

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[justintyme]

In other words, it takes money away from states who expanded Medicaid and gives it to those that didn't. Hmmmmm. That expansion itself would disappear in 2027.

There was nothing stopping these other states from expanding their coverage like California, New York, etc., so this gap that currently exists is one of those states' own doing (i.e.: their freedom of choice).

As for pre-existing conditions, health experts have weighed in saying that the protections as written in the bill are basically meaningless. The elimination of essential health benefits allows states to basically say "screw it" to things like mental health coverage, which would then basically become untenable to purchase. There is also no mechanism in the bill to ensure states meet this "adequate and affordable" (what does that even mean in real terms?) standard. Right now it is simple. You cannot charge more for people with pre-existing conditions and they may not be denied coverage. The health benefits which must be covered are also spelled out to define specifically what "adequate" coverage means. So, what's the point of changing these to a vague statement if we really want protect these people and make sure insurance actually is "adequate"? Oh, and if states still want to cut these programs under this bill and not be held to the weak "adequate and afforable" standard? All they have to do is apply to the HHS Secretary who will be required, by law, to waive them.

The plan also removes the ban on lifetime caps, so that is another mechanism insurance companies can use to limit the pre-existing crowd.

And it gets rid of the mandate altogether. How is this supposed to lower premiums if you reduce the young, healthy people in the risk pool, other than by cutting the services offered? The big reason the ACA is having issues is that too many people paid the tax penalty instead of buying insurance. The problem was that the "mandate" wasn't strong enough. And this bill goes the other direction.

This bill moves us backwards in health care, away from comprehensive universal coverage. Well, other than people will be so pussed by the dumpster fire that their health plans become that single-payer almost certainly would become a thing.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[GlennMacGrady]

[pilight]

[jammerbirdi]

[pilight]

[jammerbirdi]

Behind New Obamacare Repeal Vote: ‘Furious’ G.O.P. Donors

WASHINGTON — As more than 40 subdued Republican senators lunched on Chik-fil-A at a closed-door session last week, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado painted a dire picture for his colleagues. Campaign fund-raising was drying up, he said, because of the widespread disappointment among donors over the inability of the Republican Senate to repeal the Affordable Care Act or do much of anything else.

Mr. Gardner is in charge of his party’s midterm re-election push, and he warned that donors of all stripes were refusing to contribute another penny until the struggling majority produced some concrete results.

“Donors are furious,” one person knowledgeable about the private meeting quoted Mr. Gardner as saying. “We haven’t kept our promise.”

You can click on the link and read the rest of the story but you also don't need to bother. This is as deep as it gets. Donors are furious! Who, exactly? WHAT? Don't even ask.

[jammerbirdi]

[GlennMacGrady]

[ArtBest23]

[ArtBest23]

So it looked like good news that McCain says he "cannot in good conscience" vote for the latest GOP bill.

Then I see about CNN'S Monday night healthcare debate. Graham and Cassidy vs Sanders and Klobuchar. One last chance for Bernie and the Dems to fuck this up and drive the "no" votes into the yes column.

Maybe they should just STFU while they're ahead.

[justintyme]

[justintyme]

[ArtBest23]

On top of that, the notion that you can allow people to sit it out until they get sick or plan to get pregnant and only then jump into the insurance pool with no rating for pre-existing conditions is completely unrealistic, unworkable and imbecilic.

You can ignore pre-existing conditions when everyone is covered and everyone is paying into the system. There are ways to transfer funds among providers or create a risk pool to deal with adverse selection. But you have to be collecting premiums into the system.

You can't let people not pay in until they start making claims.

Wouldn't you like to be able to buy car insurance only after you have a wreck and then have the insurance company pay to fix your car? Does anyone think that would work?

[PUmatty]

[ArtBest23]